Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 581-592
Author(s):  
M Jassal ◽  
S Mittal ◽  
S Tewari
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of two methods of application of a mild one-step self-etch adhesive and composite resin as compared with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) control restoration in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Methods: A total of 294 restorations were placed in 56 patients, 98 in each one of the following groups: 1) G-Bond active application combined with Solare-X composite resin (A-1SEA), 2) G-Bond passive application combined with Solare-X composite resin (P-1SEA), and 3) GC II LC RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months according to the FDI criteria for fractures/retention, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. Cumulative failure rates were calculated for each criterion at each recall period. The effect of adhesive, method of application, and recall period were assessed. The Kruskal-Wallis test for intergroup comparison and Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests for intragroup comparison were used for each criterion (α=0.05). Results: The retention rates at 18 months were 93.26% for the A-1SEA group, 86.21% for the P-1SEA group, and 90.91% for the RMGIC group. The active application improved the retention rates compared with the passive application of mild one-step self-etch adhesive; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. Marginal staining was observed in 13 restorations (1 in A-1SEA, 4 in P-1SEA, and 8 in RMGIC) with no significant difference between the groups. The RMGIC group showed a significant increase in marginal staining at 12 and 18 months from the baseline. There was no significant difference between the groups for marginal adaptation, secondary caries, or postoperative sensitivity. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, we can conclude that mild one-step self-etch adhesive followed by a resin composite restoration can be an alternative to RMGIC with similar retention and improved esthetics in restoration of NCCLs. Agitation could possibly benefit the clinical performance of mild one-step self-etch adhesives, but this study did not confirm that the observed benefit was statistically significant.

scholarly journals Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine O. Geerts ◽  
Laurence Seidel ◽  
Adelin I. Albert ◽  
Audrey M. Gueders
Keyword(s):  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities () were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores (), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III (). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).

scholarly journals Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial of Self-etching Adhesives and Selective Enamel Etching

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
CE Pena ◽  
JA Rodrigues ◽  
C Ely ◽  
M Giannini ◽  
AF Reis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
One Step ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restoring noncarious cervical lesions with two self-etching adhesive systems applied with or without selective enamel etching. Methods: A one-step self-etching adhesive (Xeno V+) and a two-step self-etching system (Clearfil SE Bond) were used. The effectiveness of phosphoric acid selective etching of enamel margins was also evaluated. Fifty-six cavities were restored with each adhesive system and divided into two subgroups (n=28; etch and non-etch). All 112 cavities were restored with the nanohybrid composite Esthet.X HD. The clinical effectiveness of restorations was recorded in terms of retention, marginal integrity, marginal staining, caries recurrence, and postoperative sensitivity after 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months (modified United States Public Health Service). Results: The Friedman test detected significant differences only after 18 months for marginal staining in the groups Clearfil SE non-etch (p=0.009) and Xeno V+ etch (p=0.004). One restoration was lost during the trial (Xeno V+ etch; p>0.05). Conclusions: Although an increase in marginal staining was recorded for groups Clearfil SE non-etch and Xeno V+ etch, the clinical effectiveness of restorations was considered acceptable for the single-step and two-step self-etching systems with or without selective enamel etching in this 24-month clinical trial.

scholarly journals Influence of Isolation Method of the Operative Field on Gingival Damage, Patients' Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 581-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
AD Loguercio ◽  
I Luque-Martinez ◽  
AH Lisboa ◽  
C Higashi ◽  
VA Oliveira Queiroz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Isolation Method ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Rubber Dam ◽  
Gingival Bleeding ◽  
Recall Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Isolation Methods ◽  
Time Required

SUMMARYObjectivesTo evaluate the retention rates, gingival damage, and patients' preferences for adhesive restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) associated with the use of rubber dam vs cotton rolls/retraction cord isolation.MethodsThirty patients having one pair of similar NCCL on opposing sides of the same arch were enrolled in this study. A total of 60 restorations were placed. In each patient one restoration was placed under rubber dam isolation (RD) using dental retainers, and the other one was placed using cotton rolls/retraction cord (CR/RC) isolation. Dental residents with more than 10 years of clinical experience restored all NCCL using the same adhesive (GO!, SDI Limited, Bayswater, Australia) and composite resin (Ice, SDI). The patients' preferences were recorded. The gingival condition (bleeding, gingival laceration, and gingival insertion level) was evaluated immediately after the restorative procedure and after one week. Gingival sensitivity was also assessed one week after the end of the restorative procedures. The clinical time required to perform each restoration was recorded. The performance of the restorations was assessed using the FDI criteria at baseline and six, 12, and 18 months after clinical service. All criteria evaluated were submitted to appropriate statistical analysis (α=0.05).ResultsThe retention rates of the restorations at each recall time were not affected by the isolation method (p>0.05). No significant difference between isolation methods was found in regard to patients' preferences (p=0.86), gingival bleeding (p=0.57), laceration (p=0.64), insertion (p>0.52), gingival sensitivity (p=0.52), or chairside time (p=0.77).ConclusionsThe use of CR/RC was shown to be similar to the use of RD in terms of retention rates, patient's preference, gingival damage, and chairside time for adhesive restorations in NCCL.

scholarly journals A 48-month Clinical Evaluation of Fissure Sealants Placed With Different Adhesive Systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
AR Yazici ◽  
D Tuncer ◽  
E Firat ◽  
S Unluer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retention Rates ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Fissure Sealants ◽  
Evaluation Period ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Step ◽  
Adhesive Application ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARYAimTo compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months.Materials and MethodsThe authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson χ2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.ResultsThe retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period.ConclusionFissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 695 ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanda Mihaela Popescu ◽  
Mihaela Jana Ţuculină ◽  
Horia Octavian Manolea ◽  
Veronica Mercuţ ◽  
Monica Scrieciu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. E255-E270
Author(s):  
E Gomes de Albuquerque ◽  
F Warol ◽  
F Signorelli Calazans ◽  
L Augusto Poubel ◽  
S Soares Marins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p&gt;0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p&gt;0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p&gt;0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 889-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Banu Ermis ◽  
Kirsten L. Van Landuyt ◽  
Marcio Vivan Cardoso ◽  
Jan De Munck ◽  
Bart Van Meerbeek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

scholarly journals Conversion of a one-step self-etch adhesive into a two-step self-etch adhesive: six-months clinical results in non-carious cervical lesions

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Neimar Sartori ◽  
Renan Belli ◽  
Jackeline Coutinho Guimarães ◽  
Silvana Batalha ◽  
Sylvio Monteiro Jr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive system in non-carious cervical lesions with and without the application of an additional hydrophobic resin coat. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four non-carious cervical lesions were selected and randomly assigned to one of the two bonding technique: 1) a one-step self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE) was applied following manufacturer´s instructions; 2) a hydrophobic resin coat (Scotchbond Multipurpose Bonding Agent, 3M ESPE) was applied over the uncured Adper Easy Bond adhesive. All lessons were restored using a microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE). Clinical effectiveness was recorded at baseline and after 6-months of clinical service. RESULTS: Two restorations of each group debonded after a 6-months period. The overall clinical success was 93.8%, and no statistical significant differences could be detected for all evaluated criteria within this period. CONCLUSION: The applications of a hydrophobic resin coat over Easy Bond did not increase bonding effectiveness over a 6-months period.

The Clinical Effectiveness of Various Adhesive Systems: An 18-Month Evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Moosavi ◽  
S Kimyai ◽  
M Forghani ◽  
R Khodadadi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Public Health Services ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive systems over 18 months in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty patients, with at least three noncarious cervical lesions, were enrolled in the study. One operator randomly restored a total of 90 lesions with resin composite (Herculite XRV). The restorations were bonded with either Optibond FL (OF), three-step total-etch; Optibond Solo Plus (OS), two-step total-etch; or Optibond All-In-One (OA), one step self-etch. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months using the eight United States Public Health Services criteria. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (p&lt;0.05). After 18 months, the retention rate was (OF) 96.5%, (OS) 93.1%, and (OA) 89.7%. Differences among the three adhesive systems for evaluated criteria were not observed in comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages. There was a significant increase in marginal discoloration for (OA) adhesive after 18 months compared with baseline (p=0.011). Other restoration criteria had no statistically significant differences among the three adhesives (p&gt;0.05). With the exception of marginal discoloration, the clinical effectiveness of three types of adhesive systems in NCCLs was acceptable after 18 months. However, using the one-step self-etch adhesive may lead to some marginal discolorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document